ECM/ECCM/Hacking/Controlling the Waves

[Drayakir]

I'm slightly confused. Well, first of all, hey everyone - nice to be here. Friend ran a demo version of Traveller and I fell in love with chargen immediately. Haven't played YET, but looking forward to the session.

In any case, as the topic suggests, I'm a little confused about the rules for electronic warfare between ships. One of the options during combat is to "lock on" with your sensors on to the enemy ship. Presumably jammers allow you to counter-act that, as well as keeping your ship hidden from enemy sensors via jamming all their frequencies. That's cool.

But how do you break through a jam? I don't believe the rules say that.

Furthermore, about hacking. What could be more fun than shutting your opponent's frequencies, save one, hacking his system via your radio communication, and, oh, say, shutting down the life support. Looking at the advanced rules of hacking in the Cybertechnology book, I see that a deck is best suited for hacking. On the other hand, the main book says that I can just do a Computers check with like, a hand comm. Upon further reading, it sounds like a deck is more needed planetside, rather than during ship-to-ship combat.

Any suggestions?

 

[phavoc]

The High Guard book has a section on Sensors (pg 45). There are two types of ECCM - Countermeasure suite which gives you +4 and Military coutermeasure suite which gives you +6. The systems are in addition to what's listed in the Core rulebook. There's also a section on sensor upgrades.

You'll find it kind of annoying, but the design rules and systems are kind of spread out between multiple books and even different sections within the same book. Having the pdf file makes overcoming that annoyance much easier.

As far as hacking another players ship while in combat, there isn't a rule for that anywhere. In theory you should be able to screen out unwanted responses from your sensors... though hacking is all about getting around restrictions. I've not seen any rule out there in regards to this at all. Well, aside from the version of Traveller that had Virus in it.

 

[Drayakir]

Ah. And as I don't have the book right in front of me... yeah.

What about my assessment as far as the cybertech book? Is it for land-based hacking, or could it be extrapolated to ship-to-ship hacking?

Sorry, I just got off a massive Shadowrun binge, so... yeah. I'm just thinking how awesome it would be to have a combat hacker.

 

[golem64]

There are hacking and electronic warfare and intelligence gathering rules from page 23 in the Central Supply Catalog.

 

[Infojunky]

There are hacking and electronic warfare and intelligence gathering rules from page 23 in the Central Supply Catalog.

Yep, there In the Cybernetics book, The Verlag13 Robots book. and probably somewhere else I am forgetting.

It is specifically covered in T5 as well, but I am not suggesting that book...

 

[Bardicheart]

What about my assessment as far as the cybertech book? Is it for land-based hacking, or could it be extrapolated to ship-to-ship hacking?

Short answer, yes. Traveller Core pp143-144 talks a little about ship computer security and hacking a ships computer. There are, IIRC, currently 3 different sets of computer hacking rules in MgT (bit overdone if you ask me); so pick whichever you prefer and there you go.

PS - I enjoy Shadowrun as well, good game.

 

[Drayakir]

There are hacking and electronic warfare and intelligence gathering rules from page 23 in the Central Supply Catalog.

Yep, there In the Cybernetics book, The Verlag13 Robots book. and probably somewhere else I am forgetting.

It is specifically covered in T5 as well, but I am not suggesting that book...

Thank you! Exactly what I was looking for!

What about my assessment as far as the cybertech book? Is it for land-based hacking, or could it be extrapolated to ship-to-ship hacking?

Short answer, yes. Traveller Core pp143-144 talks a little about ship computer security and hacking a ships computer. There are, IIRC, currently 3 different sets of computer hacking rules in MgT (bit overdone if you ask me); so pick whichever you prefer and there you go.

PS - I enjoy Shadowrun as well, good game.

Really? The ones I saw seemed more akin to Shadowrun hacking against corporate targets. I -doubt- a ship would be able to afford the same kind of cybersecurity. Unless it was an Imperium military ship, I guess.

 

[phavoc]

I would say trying to hack another ship while not on that ship would be a formidable task. There would be so many issues to overcome, not to mention that every ship captain would be aware of how easily Kirk snookered Khan with having their codes...

 

[Bardicheart]

Too much Shadowrun think. One of the flaws with SR is it paints a picture that only the big corps have black ice, yet every decker I ever ran with wrote plenty of their own black ice (some of the blackest, gamers are devious people ya know 8) ). Software is software and if you've got a good security guy writing code for your ship then an intruder is in for a rough hack. Plus, like Phavoc points out, every captain out there is going to be well aware of what some hacker could do to their ship (well, maybe not arrogant overconfident captains named Kahn...); either as part of piracy or just some punk who thinks flipping the deck plating gravity from 3Gs to -3Gs 50 times is a big laugh (not so much for the crew who ends up with multiple broken bones). The big commercial ships are also owned by the 3I equivalent of megacorps (which would make the SR megacorps look like a small businesses, eat your reptilian heart out Lofwyr!) so even if you stick with the SR thinking, they could easily have some nasty security, dedicated computer security crew onboard, etc.

Also keep in mind that hacking a ship has the ultimate failsafe / firewall... turn off the comms. No signal, no hack. So like Phavoc pointed out, its going to be tough because you'd have to hack them over an open channel without anyone noticing or setting off an alarm. All they have to do to stop you is shut down the comms or disconnect them from the main computer and you're locked out. Now if you want to make it REALLY exciting, first you have to disable the ship in combat and attempt to board at which point your hacker plugs (or splices) into an external port and begins hacking the security to get the hatches open and disable the security features (like that auto turret just the other side of the airlock). Once inside where its a little safer (and nobody is trying to fire a ships laser turret or sand caster at him... which is REALLY distracting) he again begins a hack trying to get control of the main computer(s) while the rest of the boarding party deals with any defenders and makes their way toward the bridge and engineering. Hopefully they left a marine or two behind to protect the hacker... just in case some security slip past the boarding parties. Just for some ideas.

There's one set of hacking rules in Cybernetics which is similar to Shadowrun (cinematic hacking)

There's another set in of hacking rules in Book 9: Robots (pp 67-71)

And yet a third set (actually the first rules published IIRC) of hacking rules in Book 6: Scoundrel (pp 65-69)

We're all real curious as to which version is the "official" hacking rules for MgT... :roll:

TIP: If computer hacking is going to be part of your game, you might want to let players know before hand which rules will be used.

I tend to use the rules from Scoundrel; I find them to be workable, and a nice compromise between the cinematic style of Shadowrun and realism (plus they were the first rules I used so... okay biased). They also tend to avoid the "three world" problem referees run up against in Shadowrun. But they're not quite as exciting if you really like the whole matrixy cyberspace thing. The rules from cybernetics work best for that kind of hacking if that's your preference.

 

[Condottiere]

I'd physically keep sensors and comm separate the central core, and shut off the wifi. And bluetooth.

It's probably more effective to hack a crewmember's iPhone with a virus while in port, or infiltrate a spiderbot to worm his way into the computer core when the ship is underway.

 

[CosmicGamer]

The tendency here and now in our real lives is to have full mobile access to everything for convenience - making everything hackable. It however does not have to be that way.

If networking is disconnected or disabled, my computer will still play all my single player games, scan photos for me to edit and print, run my productivity software, organize my activities and pop up reminders and so on. Email, facebook and many other things can be done from my phone.

I don't believe there vital systems of the ship have to be interconnected with less secure systems. For example, the astrogation computer can be like an older scientific calculator - stand alone, limited functionality, and limited I/O. While one person may want wireless access to the grav plating controls to monitor it and make adjustments, there is no reason it has to be.

I haven't read through the different materials to know how they all handle hacking, but I'd think it is up to the GM and players to use some common sense. If hacking is easy and not a one in a million thing, then I'd think systems would be less connected. Ok, you just hacked the comms and can now see the secure communications between the ship and their patron, but perhaps that isn't going to get you access to shut down the engines.

Perhaps a chain of tasks. Hack the comms, get someone to open an attachment to infect and hack the computer, use the hacked computer to hack into the engine subprogram...

Just some rambling thoughts.

 

[Condottiere]

Stuxnet is a computer worm discovered in June 2010 that is believed to have been created by United States and Israel agencies to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.[1] Stuxnet initially spreads via Microsoft Windows, and targets Siemens industrial control systems. While it is not the first time that hackers have targeted industrial systems,[2] it is the first discovered malware that spies on and subverts industrial systems,[3] and the first to include a programmable logic controller (PLC) rootkit.[4][5]
The worm initially spreads indiscriminately, but includes a highly specialized malware payload that is designed to target only Siemens supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems that are configured to control and monitor specific industrial processes.[6][7] Stuxnet infects PLCs by subverting the Step-7 software application that is used to reprogram these devices.[8][9]
Different variants of Stuxnet targeted five Iranian organizations,[10] with the probable target widely suspected to be uranium enrichment infrastructure in Iran;[9][11][12] Symantec noted in August 2010 that 60% of the infected computers worldwide were in Iran.[13] Siemens stated that the worm has not caused any damage to its customers,[14] but the Iran nuclear program, which uses embargoed Siemens equipment procured secretly, has been damaged by Stuxnet.[15][16] Kaspersky Lab concluded that the sophisticated attack could only have been conducted "with nation-state support".[17] This was further supported by the F-Secure's chief researcher Mikko Hyppönen who commented in a Stuxnet FAQ, "That's what it would look like, yes".[18] It has been speculated that Israel[19] and the United States may have been involved.[20][21]
In May 2011, the PBS program Need To Know cited a statement by Gary Samore, White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction, in which he said, "we're glad they [the Iranians] are having trouble with their centrifuge machine and that we – the US and its allies – are doing everything we can to make sure that we complicate matters for them", offering "winking acknowledgement" of US involvement in Stuxnet.[22] According to The Daily Telegraph, a showreel that was played at a retirement party for the head of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Gabi Ashkenazi, included references to Stuxnet as one of his operational successes as the IDF chief of staff.[19]
On 1 June 2012, an article in The New York Times said that Stuxnet is part of a U.S. and Israeli intelligence operation called "Operation Olympic Games", started under President George W. Bush and expanded under President Barack Obama.[23]
On 24 July 2012, an article by Chris Matyszczyk from cnet[24] reported how the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran e-mailed F-Secure's chief research officer Mikko Hyppönen to report a new instance of malware.
On 25 December 2012, an Iranian semi-official news agency announced there was a cyberattack by Stuxnet, this time on the industries in the southern area of the country. The virus targeted a power plant and some other industries in Hormozgan province in recent months.[25]
According to expert Eugene Kaspersky, the worm also infected a nuclear powerplant in Russia. Kaspersky noted, however, that since the powerplant is not connected to the public Internet, the system should remain safe.[26]

I hear that the Iranian's equipment was infected by either the deliberate or innocent use of compromised USB sticks.

 

[Bardicheart]

Ditto on what Condottiere and Cosmic just posted. Although the current trend is for everything to become "part of the cloud"; there are some bucking that. Adobe has caught quite a bit of blowback from former customers (myself included) who don't like or want their cloud model because its not good for us as end users. There's a place for wireless wi-fi and cloud computing... but its not good for everything.

And of course there's Traveller's "stuck in the 70's" starship computers where one computer runs everything, is extremely expensive, and yet has a remarkably limited amount of processing power. :roll:

Note: On my homebrew ship designs, they typically have multiple computers, one dedicated to engineering, one for piloting and navs, labs usually have their own computer each, comms is its own isolated system, sensors may be part of navs except on survey and naval vessels where its its own system loaded with expert analysis software... you get the idea.

 

[Drayakir]

Thank you so much for all your feedback - I'm not the DM - er, excuse me, REFEREE, but a player. I decided to play a Scholar Scientist and ended up with a Computers of 6 after 6 terms of service. I figured that there might be some interesting things to do with it, such as yes, combat hacking or jamming (Comms 3, Sensors 2 IIRC).

I was just wondering whether it's feasible or not with the rules as is. Turns out it is.

I don't expect it to be easy at all - after all, as all of you mentioned, ships are gonna have some nasty Security and Black IC on them. Makes it all the more challenging, after all.

I just feel that in most space-based games ECM/ECCM and information warfare in general is generally underplayed and not mentioned at all.

 

[locarno24]

But how do you break through a jam? I don't believe the rules say that.

If you jam a sensor lock, the other ship loses its sensor lock. You can get it back with another "establish sensor lock" later on; jamming isn't an all-or-nothing proposition; it means that combat becomes more

"Got a hard lock...no, lost it. No, got it back...no, lost it again. You know what, screw it. Just fire."

Because it's an opposed sensors test; a proper military countermeasures suite is not only more likely to get the lock in the first place, but breaks enemy lock ons more easily and is less likely to lose lock itself (and if it does, will get it back at the first opportunity).

 

[Drayakir]

But how do you break through a jam? I don't believe the rules say that.

"Got a hard lock...no, lost it. No, got it back...no, lost it again. You know what, screw it. Just fire."

Because it's an opposed sensors test; a proper military countermeasures suite is not only more likely to get the lock in the first place, but breaks enemy lock ons more easily and is less likely to lose lock itself (and if it does, will get it back at the first opportunity).

Well, now here's another question - there's nothing that says that you cannot have one guy on the sensors jamming/locking on; the the hacker trying to gain access to the core, the starfighter pilots dogfighting, the boarding team cutting through the hull, and the two ships exchanging fire?

Other than a pissed off DM of course...

 

[Bardicheart]

Or instead of cutting through the hull your "decker" (to use the SR term) could suit up with the boarding party and use those skillz to hack the airlock security and controls, which may be a lot faster. If he's physically splicing into the ship security ECM won't be any help at trying to jam him. If the target ship doesn't have their own computer geek onboard to counter hack, things get simpler and your "decker" could probably hack the lock with a single computer skill check (which may make your Referee happier).

 

[F33D]

Furthermore, about hacking. What could be more fun than shutting your opponent's frequencies, save one, hacking his system via your radio communication, and, oh, say, shutting down the life support.
]

That could work if your opponents comm & computer system was designed and implemented by your military. Otherwise, designers are not that stupid without 1st having a lobotomy.

 

[High Orbit Drifter]

Furthermore, about hacking. What could be more fun than shutting your opponent's frequencies, save one, hacking his system via your radio communication, and, oh, say, shutting down the life support.
]

That could work if your opponents comm & computer system was designed and implemented by your military. Otherwise, designers are not that stupid without 1st having a lobotomy.

And that is why its a difficult task and a major accomplishment, instead of just flipping a switch like on a bad TV show, which someone seems to have seen to much of.

 

[Condottiere]

Can you shut down a tight laser beam electronically?